Info about the map:Xel'nagas: 4Distance between main bases: ~58 seconds in horizontal positions and ~62s in cross spawns at a worker speed.Size of the map: 162x162

Hi guys Kantuva here again, and this time instead of a experimental map i bring you my beloved little girl instead; Cloud Atlas, i have worked on this map quite a bit and i hope you guys enjoy seeing and playing it now ^^

I would really like to hear what you guys have to say about the thirds specially the ones in highground, since i've been thinking of tighten the 3rd's choke point, since atm i think it's hard to take the third base as toss, but im would like to know what you guys think first.

What you see here is the LE version of the map, exist other version without the xel'naga towers and you can play it on the [NA] server.

SCMelee page of the map (I had forgoten to post it here, god guys you where quick about posting the map there)

Gameplay wise as you said it's kind of standard.. but it seems solid. I think in PvZ or TvZ you will almost always take the highground base as your third, while in some other matchups you might be better served w/ the lowground one, depending on spawns.

I don't have a problem with either 3rd. The rocks at the highground 3rd could be interesting because what if someone starts shelling your geyser/nearby mineral patches from the lowground? You can drive them away easier if the rocks are down but taking out the rocks also opens you up to later attacks/harass.

I just finished reading the book a few weeks ago and have yet to see the movie.

The aesthetics are quite pretty, you nailed the city theme well. For gameplay, I think you did a good job connecting the naturals and thirds to the center of the map. What I see too often with 4 player rotational maps is the middle and the separate symmetrical areas being two separate entities. Here, you really combine them and make them seem more as one section.

The thirds seem balanced, though I think that the obstructions outside the low ground one are a bit odd. I think it would make more sense if those two holes in the map were combined into one and resized accordingly to keep the openness in that area relatively the same as before.

I don't see any line of sight blockers on the map, you could add some in different areas if you want to.

That movie was one hell of a ride, and that map is seemed nicely into the 2144 theme.

Comparing BW with SCII is like comparing a beautiful three-master sailing ship with a modern battlecruiser. Both are beautiful in their own way, both perform the same task, but they are worlds apart in how they are built and how they are steered.

@Fatam Well in the case of the highground 3rds and the fact that these bases are siegeable from low ground im thrusting that in the case a terran player spawns in the top left base and a toss in the bottom left the terran won't attack in that angle the third base with siege tanks, since if the terran does his army will be so much out of position that the protoss could just walk up into the terran base without fears of being catched up by the terran's army and whipe out everything. And if that goes wrong it will happen what you say, the defending player will have to destroy the rocks opening up the path to future harass, but at the same time it opens the path for the defending player to take more bases, i really liked that duality, having a negative reaction and a positive at the same time.Now that i read what i wrote im not sure that it's understandable , so what im trying to say is that i don't see this scenario happening in many games since if a terran camp his army just at the side of the rocks to shell the highground third base his army would be way out of position to hold any counter attack to his main base.

@Antares yeah, may initial plan was something along these lines but the problem i faced was that an atacking army losed way too much movility if i placed these holes together, so i separated them, but the funny part is even if in the overview it doesn't look like a wide open area it actually is.And in the thing about the sight blockers, in some early stages of the map it used to have some around the xel'nagas (in the highground part) and in that area between the holes in the lowground 3rd, but they proved to "scare" the players and they forced a considerable level of deathball kind of play. So for this map in specific i prefer to not have sight blockers.

im really glad you guys liked the theme of the map ^^

@Kantuva | Mapmaker | KTVMaps.wordpress.com | Check my profile to see my TL map threads, and you can search for KTV in the Custom Games section to play them.

At 162x162, "hella big" and "excessively open" would be my major concerns. Aside from that, the texturing masks the layout of the map in certain areas, rather than enhance its clarity. The texturing is very pretty, though.

Well i don't see the distance being a extremely big problem, since the walking distance is just slightly longer than cloud kingdom (which is around 57 seconds), and the other thing the openess of the map, for a moment it was a concern i had, but then i realized that it actually it wasn't THAT open, i mean the map clearly is not the same as whirlwind but at the same time isn't daybreak either, so cointinuing with this idea, when i came up with the design of the 3rd bases being conected to the center i realized that while the map was open, many of the chokepoint generated as a product of these "bridges" actually made the map slighly chockey (it is the right word?) in many vital areas like the area surounding the highground thirds, so even if like you i'm concerned about the openess of the map in some areas, i think and i have see that this design plays fairly nice and i'm very happy about it ^^

@Kantuva | Mapmaker | KTVMaps.wordpress.com | Check my profile to see my TL map threads, and you can search for KTV in the Custom Games section to play them.

The openness is actually reduced quite a bit by all the chokepoints due to fitting ramps together in an acceptable way, and the aesthetics kind of mask this. Which is counter to how I usually come down on aesthetics, but in this case I like it because it makes you feel like you are inside a confusing architecture until you become familiar with the layout of the space. This is distinct from distractingly bad and confusing textures, which should definitely be avoided. So, nice work.

Overall I like it, because it uses a good concept that was also used in DF Atlas. Pretty funny name coincidence. ^^

I would love to see either of these maps used, even both in the same map pool, in competition play. The asymmetrical rocks (4) rotational setup has never been seen in high level play and to me it's a very promising layout style, with enough room for variation to keep providing interesting options.

On December 29 2012 09:41 Uvantak wrote:Well i don't see the distance being a extremely big problem, since the walking distance is just slightly longer than cloud kingdom (which is around 57 seconds), and the other thing the openess of the map, for a moment it was a concern i had, but then i realized that it actually it wasn't THAT open, i mean the map clearly is not the same as whirlwind but at the same time isn't daybreak either, so cointinuing with this idea, when i came up with the design of the 3rd bases being conected to the center i realized that while the map was open, many of the chokepoint generated as a product of these "bridges" actually made the map slighly chockey (it is the right word?) in many vital areas like the area surounding the highground thirds, so even if like you i'm concerned about the openess of the map in some areas, i think and i have see that this design plays fairly nice and i'm very happy about it ^^

The reason I'm concerned about openness is because while there are some nicely choked points in key areas, the size of the map will inevitably fall toward Zerg being able to get a very strong economy quite quickly. Since Terran and Protoss have to worry about getting horribly surrounded by a Zerg who doesn't even have to consider splitting their army to get a good flank, it greatly reduces the number of viable paths they can take without putting themselves at incredible risk, or waiting on getting a 200/200 death army.

I definitely see no huge issue with players defending bases though, since any race can make use of those chokes to protect their expansions without getting overwhelmed by a larger army. I think that works out decently.

---------------------------

On December 29 2012 12:14 EatThePath wrote:The openness is actually reduced quite a bit by all the chokepoints due to fitting ramps together in an acceptable way, and the aesthetics kind of mask this. Which is counter to how I usually come down on aesthetics, but in this case I like it because it makes you feel like you are inside a confusing architecture until you become familiar with the layout of the space. This is distinct from distractingly bad and confusing textures, which should definitely be avoided. So, nice work.

Overall I like it, because it uses a good concept that was also used in DF Atlas. Pretty funny name coincidence. ^^

I would love to see either of these maps used, even both in the same map pool, in competition play. The asymmetrical rocks (4) rotational setup has never been seen in high level play and to me it's a very promising layout style, with enough room for variation to keep providing interesting options.

Epic racetrack scenery btw.

Even if your assessment on choke points and aesthetic masking is accurate, it only emphasizes my point about the difficulty presented in map clarity. I don't really consider that to be a positive as you seem to in this case, but that's just my opinion on what is naturally a subjective matter.

You know, the road decals are a mixed blessing. While they are not symmetrical and thus more unique, they actually obstruct observers (and probably players), going by the pictures in the OP.

Simplicity is much appreciated in that regard. Perhaps it is not as bad in game but the editor render seems confusing to the eye. I can't claim to know too much about the efficiency of the layout as I'm having a hard time due to the roads ><. Looks pretty good though - like the open middle.

"Think of the hysteria following the realization that they consciously consume babies and raise the dead people from their graves" - N0

Indeed, as many of you guys says the texturing is by far my weakest point, it's really hard for me to choose the texturing for my maps and many times i have had to re-texturise entire finished maps because of it and in this case i have retexturized this map at least twice, and even tho im not yet thrilled with the actual result in texturing. I really hate my eye at the moment of choosing the textures -.-, but i hope it will go away with time and practice.

@caustic and in that regard about the openess of the map in many areas, your fears about zerg dominating the map because of these wide open areas are right founded, but in the (yet) few games i have seen the map openess haven't proved being a problem mostly because it is extremelly hard for the zergs to caugh the protoss in a bad position if the toss doesn't mess something up heavily, and if he does there's still a small window of time before the battle where the toss can seek shelter in the nearest choke point (even if it is a wide one) or at least a wall (if he really fucked something up) since many of the choke points are in areas where armies would want to positionate or a least be near of.

@Kantuva | Mapmaker | KTVMaps.wordpress.com | Check my profile to see my TL map threads, and you can search for KTV in the Custom Games section to play them.

On December 30 2012 04:41 Uvantak wrote:Indeed, as many of you guys says the texturing is by far my weakest point, it's really hard for me to choose the texturing for my maps and many times i have had to re-texturise entire finished maps because of it and in this case i have retexturized this map at least twice, and even tho im not yet thrilled with the actual result in texturing. I really hate my eye at the moment of choosing the textures -.-, but i hope it will go away with time and practice.

@caustic and in that regard about the openess of the map in many areas, your fears about zerg dominating the map because of these wide open areas are right founded, but in the (yet) few games i have seen the map openess haven't proved being a problem mostly because it is extremelly hard for the zergs to caugh the protoss in a bad position if the toss doesn't mess something up heavily, and if he does there's still a small window of time before the battle where the toss can seek shelter in the nearest choke point (even if it is a wide one) or at least a wall (if he really fucked something up) since many of the choke points are in areas where armies would want to positionate or a least be near of.

Don't forget to consider Terran as well. They don't have the power of forcefields as a stopgap solution if they lack an ideal position to engage in.

At the end of the day though, it's play data that matters. If the games are showing that there isn't a major issue, then she's all good.

If it was released today it would be the best 4player map in the pool. I do not believe at all its bad for terran vs zerg because there are 4 bases in relatively close proximity meaning the MVP style mass battlecruiser/mech fully upgraded mega army he used to destroy nerchio would work pretty well here, defending 4 bases with a couple planetary fortresses

About the size of the map, the main thing is distance from natural to natural, and honestly I feel the distance isnt really that far, a bit longer than cloud kingdom

Ive been saying forever I wish some people could make some awesome 4player maps, I mean jeeze how hard can it fricken be srsly. Tired of the lame 4player maps like antiga/entombed, and cookie cutter 1v1 maps like ohana, cloud kingdome, and daybreak. I cant believe weve been playing this amazing game on maps like that for 2years holy hell.. 1v1 maps like Planet S in proleague are pretty sweet

blizzards new maps in hots are HORRIBLE, HORRIBLEEEEEEEEE my god. This game would be so much better, SO MUCH damn better if we actually had decent maps. HOW HARD can it be to make decent maps holy hell seriously.

Great job this map gets my seal of approval as being a awesome map. I hope more 4player maps are made that are just as awesome and I hope blizzard just uses community made maps because damn they are so much better than blizzard maps

That's an illusion caused by the sheer size of the map. The mains look small relative to the rest of the map, but it's actually the rest of the map that's quite large.

Edit: Another thing I just noticed is that resource placement is really wacky. On top of that, the mains have different mineral placements depending on where you spawn. o_O

yeah I feel this map could have a slight slight trimdown in some minor areas to reduce size slightly. im not exactly sure where though. Also the mineral patches of course should be completely balanced on both sides

All in all though I feel this would be one of the best maps in the pool since terran/protoss have a much easier time defending 4bases on this compared to other 4p maps

@Caustic Wow that's a real mapmaker eye, are you refering to that patch in the middle of the mineral fields of the main bases that's missplaced by one hexe?if so thanks i haven't noticed that, if not dunno what else could be since as you know the minerals are 2x1 and can't be positioned exactly the same in rotated bases, i did my best to avoid any positional imbalance derivated from that tho, if you see something wrong please draw a circle where it is and i will fix it in the blink of an eye.

@bankobauss thanks alot for your word pal it really means something to me (this map is my little girl after all ♥), but you need to give some credit to the balance team (the balance team are the guys that make the maps for the ladder) his lastes maps are a prove that they have taken some mapmaking classes i mean at least there are no rocks on top of the thirds and stuff...

Oh! oh! i almost forgot @caustic; Fuck Terran i mean didn't they have enough with these first two nightmareish years??anywho the terran i got to test the map was a beast (it surprise me how many good players you can contact in the chat channels) and crushed the other testers (at ~master level) so i don't really have data in vsT matchups, but he said that the map "was fine" in that regard so i think i will take his word.

@Kantuva | Mapmaker | KTVMaps.wordpress.com | Check my profile to see my TL map threads, and you can search for KTV in the Custom Games section to play them.

On December 30 2012 13:29 Uvantak wrote:@Caustic Wow that's a real mapmaker eye, are you refering to that patch in the middle of the mineral fields of the main bases that's missplaced by one hexe?if so thanks i haven't noticed that, if not dunno what else could be since as you know the minerals are 2x1 and can't be positioned exactly the same in rotated bases, i did my best to avoid any positional imbalance derivated from that tho, if you see something wrong please draw a circle where it is and i will fix it in the blink of an eye.

@bankobauss thanks alot for your word pal it really means something to me (this map is my little girl after all ♥), but you need to give some credit to the balance team (the balance team are the guys that make the maps for the ladder) his lastes maps are a prove that they have taken some mapmaking classes i mean at least there are no rocks on top of the thirds and stuff...

Oh! oh! i almost forgot @caustic; Fuck Terran i mean didn't they have enough with these first two nightmareish years??anywho the terran i got to test the map was a beast (it surprise me how many good players you can contact in the chat channels) and crushed the other testers (at ~master level) so i don't really have data in vsT matchups, but he said that the map "was fine" in that regard so i think i will take his word.

For main base resources, I recommend utilizing one of the standard mineral placements (either cardinal or 45 degree) for main bases, so that you don't have to worry as much about trying to get them to match each other. You can find them in a post I made here. For 45 degree resource placement, you can also make use of this example posted by Gfire. It's basically the same as what's displayed in the first link, but two of the mineral patches (the top-most ones in the picture) are shifted 1 unit. Depends on your preference.